John McCain is projected to beat Mitt Romney by a slim margin in Florida, a key battle for Republicans seeking to run for president in November.
With half the vote counted, US networks gave him 36% to Mr Romney's 32%.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - who has staked his bid for the party nomination on Florida - was trailing in third and Mike Huckabee fourth.
Hillary Clinton claimed victory in the Democratic vote, although it is a largely symbolic contest.
No delegates are at stake for the Democrats because the state's Democratic Party has been penalised by the national party for breaking rules on when it could hold its primary.
With 42% of the votes counted, Mrs Clinton had 52% to Mr Obama's 30%, with John Edwards coming in third with 16%.
Giuliani's future
For the Republican hopefuls, 57 delegates are at stake in the winner-takes-all primary - the biggest prize of the primary season so far.
They will attend the party's national convention later this year when the Republican candidate is chosen.
The Florida victor will also gain crucial momentum ahead of Super Tuesday on 5 February, when 24 states vote.
With just over half the vote counted, Mr Giuliani was in third place with 15%.
Mr Huckabee, who won in Iowa but needed a good result in Florida to keep him in contention, was fourth with 13%. Texas Congressman Ron Paul was fifth with 3% of the vote.
Mr Huckabee thanked his activists in Florida and said of his campaign: "It's not even close to being over. We like to believe we are just getting started."
Mr Giuliani, who has focused almost his entire campaign so far on Florida, had been hoping that pre-vote opinion polls putting him well behind the two front-runners would prove wrong.
He has insisted that he expects to win the primary - but if that does not prove the case, it could spell the end for Mr Giuliani's campaign, analysts say.
He declined to elaborate on earlier remarks that he would make a decision on the future of his campaign on Wednesday morning.
The BBC's Andy Gallacher in Miami says that the state of the economy has been the main issue for voters in Florida.
The state has been hit hard by the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Of the two Republican front-runners, Mr McCain focused on national security and has strong support among a large number of military servicemen and veterans in the state.
Mr Romney, a former businessman and former governor of Massachusetts, has presented himself as someone with the credentials to shore up the economy.
Democratic row
None of the Democratic candidates campaigned in Florida after the party's national committee penalised Florida for holding its primary early.
But Mrs Clinton - who has said she wants the state's delegates reinstated and seated at the national convention - held a victory rally in Davie, Florida, as the results came in.
She told supporters: "I am thrilled to have had this vote of confidence that you have given me today and I promise you I will do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated, but Florida is in the winning column for the Democrats in 2008."
Mrs Clinton is also keen to see the delegates reinstated in Michigan - a state she won, as the only major candidate on the ballot, but which was stripped of its delegates in the same way as Florida.
However, Senator Barack Obama, her chief rival, told reporters he believed the decision on delegates "should be made after the nomination, not before".
Mr Obama spent the day campaigning in Kansas, another Super Tuesday state, where he visited the town of El Dorado, the hometown of his maternal grandfather.
He also picked up the endorsement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who delivered the Democratic response to President George W Bush's State of the Union address on Monday.
Well, that pretty much seals the deal for Giuliani's compaign... which I think we all saw coming. However, given that he was my first choice out of the Republican crowd, and I can't help but be saddened. I was hoping against all logic and reason that he might, just might, take Florida, and find himself back in the race. *sigh*
I guess I now know how Pope felt when Dennis the Menace bowed out... :P
My next choice by default is now McCain. And I wouldn't rule out a McCain/Giuliani ticket... But should McCain lose the nomination to Romney or the Huckster... well, fark! I guess I'm going to defect to the Obama camp, just to make an effort to keep either of those two fuggers from getting into the office.
So you democrats: You'd better nominate Obama, or I'm throwing away my vote on a Libertarian!
13 comments:
Glad to see you would consider Obama. I am leaning a little toward him in general, although--and I hate to break it to you--his policies are really, really close to Hillary's. I am only leaning in his direction because I a) refuse to support any candidate that voted to give W the powers they did to "prosecute the global war on terrorism" and b) I am opposed to this alternating dynasty thing that seems to be materializing--it ain't cool! Anyway, I wish I could say I was sorry Giuliani dropped out....but I can't. Though I would honestly have preferred Huckabee to go.
Well, don't mistake my intentions: I would vote for Obama because in my mind, his policies would be the lesser of two evils, and because he doesn't creep me out. He seems to be a bright man who is in politics for the right reasons: i.e. he wants to make a difference, and for the better. I just think that his party and his platform sucks ass. ;)
People like Hillary and Romney, on the other hand, are just too fake to get my vote. Regardless of what her policies are, I don't particularly care for her character, or for how she treats people. And here, I do hold a bit of a double standard... I hear Giuliani can be a hard man to work for, too, so I won't begrudge anyone that point. For whatever reason, those traits make Giuliani a "strong and assertive leader". In Hillary, those traits make her "a bitch". :P I know, Hypocrisy. Buuuuut, oh well. suckit.
But to be perfectly, blatantly honest, even if McCain gets the nomination, I don't think the Republican base is going to get fired up and run out to the polls to turn the tide in his favor. Hard Core conservative pundits don't like him (hell, Rush Limbaugh fuggin hates him) because he won't tow the party line if he feels it's wrong to do so, and evangelical Christians don't like the fact that he's called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance"... Of course, these are all points in his favor in my book.
But, in the end, while I probably wouldn't say that Obama is more energetic, I would say that he's younger, more charismatic, and has less political baggage than McCain does.
Beck said: "For whatever reason, those traits make Giuliani a 'strong and assertive leader'. In Hillary, those traits make her 'a bitch'. :P I know, Hypocrisy. Buuuuut, oh well. suckit."
Comments like that almost make me want to vote for Hillary. I am not going to bat for her here, but I really don't get how people can see the same qualities in Giuliani (like you say) and see him as assertive or strong and Hillary as a bitch. I have heard this attitude expressed repeatedly. Her supporters, particularly women, argue that when women express masculine qualities they are ridiculed and seen as bitches, especially by men. I have resisted accepting this perspective, maybe because I have my own problems with her, but you comment kind of makes me think they are right. In fact, almost all of the strong women politicians get the same label" Pelosi, Boxer...even Maggie Thatcher got that. It does seem unfair...and a little sexist. So what is it? Why do strong women get labeled bitches and jackasses like Giuliani get to be strong and assertive? And seriously, I say jackass because he is not just "hard to work for"...his kids apparently don't even like him that much. He treats people like crap, and as an executive looked a lot like a fascist--at least that was his style in NYC.
Your argument may be "oh well, suck it", but I guess it makes me see why so many women really want to see Hillary win regardless of whether or not they really like her.
Interesting... these same qualities make Reed look like a bitch too...
So at the very least, it isn't [i]entirely[/i] due to gender.
... upon some further thought, I just want to interject that I should have punctuated that last remark with a :P or :) or an emoticon of your choice. I'm sure it could have been read in a very condescending tone, and I just want to make doubly sure that it's read in a tongue in cheek manner, a gentle ribbing, or a getting of your goat, if you will. No disrespect or hurtful feelings were intended.
And I stand by my assertion that Hillary is a bitch.
:P
I don't care for Hilary for a number of reasons: her voting record, her refusal to admit the mistake of voting for the Invasion of Iraq, the things I have heard about her managerial style, the way she comes across on camera, she often has the same condescension in her voice that is a trademark of the Neo-Con, the way I perceive her playing the "gender card", the fact she counts her years as first lady as political experience (I mean, it kinda is, but only to a point), I don't she has made clear any real policy changes she would enact, I am not sure on her health care plan... the list goes on.
I don't care for Guiliani for a number of reasons: the things I have heard about his managerial style, the fact he can't speak for longer than 2 paragraphs without mentioning 9/11 (I don't want a "disaster" president), I have disagreed with most foreign policy statements I have heard him make, there are still lingering money issues from NY that have not been entirely cleared up, so many of the public service people in NY don't care for him, he comes off as an old time mobster in his tone sometimes, I haven't heard hardly any policy changes from him... the list goes on.
McCain seems like a good man, but he often looks like he is under too much stress. Have you ever seen that forced smile he does for the camera? I feel sorry for him. I don't agree with him on Iraq, or most of the Republican platform. And about the religious right, here's an except from an ABC news article from March 28, 2006 entitled "McCain Woos Right, Makes Peace with Falwell":
When McCain ran for president the last time, he denounced Falwell as one of America's "agents of intolerance." But now that McCain is gearing up to run for president as the GOP's establishment candidate, he has told Falwell that he spoke "in haste" in 2000.
"It just came down to pure old politics in South Carolina and other states," Falwell said.
Falwell and McCain first made peace in a face-to-face meeting a few months ago. In a sign of their improved relationship, McCain has agreed to be the graduation speaker at Falwell's Liberty University on May 13.
Well, I was looking for a more substantive discussion on why assertiveness and strength in women is often seen as "bitchy" by men, particularly conservative men, but I guess not. Beck's clever and articulate response would seem to underscore the arguments made by many of my friends that support Hillary: that many men--again highlight conservative, traditional men--are threatened by the idea of the a female in a position of power because it upsets the status quo and potentially strips them of their position of dominance in both the home (private) and political (public) spheres.
I have spent a lot of energy arguing against this as the reason so many people dislike Hillary, but I guess I was wrong it is perspectives like Beck's that make her so distasteful to so many (not that there are not ample other reasons as well). So I guess that's it. This dynamic in a sense makes many men feel emasculated. Or, to put it in more base terms, Beck's testicles shrivel up and suck into his body cavity at the idea that woman could be strong and assertive and ascend to the presidency while he seems to get a chubby when Giuliani flaunts the same qualities.
Oh...almost forgot the emoticon: [>p....whatever that one is supposed to mean.
An equally articulate and well thought out argument as mine, Reed. I applaud your willful engagement in asshattery with me.
Anyway: There is a grain of truth to be plucked from your anti-conservative, anti-beck, anti-reason or sense tyrade... Men (no matter what their political slant, you silly bear) can be very easily threatened or rubbed the wrong by women who wield power and influence like men do. (key phrase here: like men do) We can train ourselves to suppress it, like Reed did in Liberal Zealot Bootcamp, but it's still there.
However, I recall reading somewhere that the key point to be made is that historically, women that have been genuinely effective and influential leaders don't tend to wield their power and influence in the same way men do... if they strike a balance between power & influence, and their natural femininity, their authority is generally far more well accepted and appreciated by males... even to the point of being attracted to it.
And I'm inclined believe it, especially given my experience working for numerous project or department managers that were women. "assertive yet feminine" is a winning combo. "assertive yet bitchy", less so.
If I were a psychology major, I'm sure I would probably make a link to some primordial memory of our mothers when we were children here...
In Hillary's particular case, there's plenty of "assertiveness" and "authority", yet not so much in the way of "soft" or "feminine". And the heaping spoonful of "bitch" probably doesn't help, either.
So am I some kind of a jerk believing that men and women are not the same, and are therefore more effective when they express their leadership in different ways?
I'm sure Reed would think so... since the end goal of Reed's brand of the Liberal agenda seems to be to breed humanity into a collective of genderless sociosapien clones who all suckle from the teet of the government overlord. I was going to say "the hive queen", but then she would have a gender!!! and we can't have a lack of biological or psychological sameness here, or we would be insensitive, conservative pricks who get chubbies and stuff.
Hey, I am all for appreciating the feminine power characteristics. In fact, I recommend that Beck read Anne Tickner (I can send you articles and cites if you like) and other Feminist Theorists of international relations. There is a virtue to them, and a balance between the two in policy making--or any decision making--is preferable. The thing is, I don't see why just because a woman exhibits male "like" characteristics she is bitchy. I guess if you are more comfortable with the genders bowing to their socially assigned rolls and attitudes that's your choice. I personally don't care. People can take whatever roles they like, and I don't see how that alters their "sex." How people act has little do with sex outside of social construction. Gender roles are defined socially anyway. Maybe traditional gender roles are just shortcuts for sex...so people don't confused. I think that Turkmenbashi, when he was alive, forbade male newscasters from wearing make up because he once thought a male anchor was hot--he thought it was a chick. So maybe conservatives prefer to know use shortcuts like "if they are soft and nurturing they are chicks"..."stern and assertive they are dudes." Oh well. Whatever makes life easy.
LOL! Quothe the great Adam Boggs: "WOOOOOO!!!1..*pause*....THOSE ARE GUYS...." *dives behind seat*
Well, whether its nature or nurture (or both), people react psychologically in different ways to those of the opposite gender. (Or those of both genders... but that's another story for another time, I think). And I don't think that can really be helped much.
And we're not talking about gender roles, here, either. We're talking about how the chemicals in our brains behave when we interact with other human beings.
Personally, I don't think any reasonable male finds assertiveness or the status of authority objectionable in women. And while I may certainly joke about it, nor does exhibiting male qualities make one bitchy.
Exhibiting bitchy qualities, on the other hand, does make one bitchy.
how's that for profundity!!
Agreed. So we should also agree that Rudy Giuliani is a bitch. BTW, love the Adam "Z" Boggs reference. Always a sagely man.
Perhaps. But that bitchiness doesn't necessarily make me not like the man...
Probably for the same reasons I don't dislike you. :P Your other more admirable qualities outshine your bitch-ness.
Hillary on the other hand... her flavor of bitchiness doesn't sit well with me, and her admirable qualities are few. So each to his or her or both's own!
1. I live and die by the "bitch" label - it is a label I have earned in many ways and one that I have come to accept if not sometimes embrace. Yet - as much as all of that is true - I always flinch a little when I hear that term thrown around in any situation. I think it's using a generality to trivialize someone seen as a threat in one form or another. I also think it's super dangerous if used by the wrong individuals in certain situations.
2. Hillary - good god it seems like all I talk about is Hillary. It's odd - I think I got stereotyped myself as this blazing feminazi who would be 100% behind anyone who has a vagina regardless of the mind behind the vagina - for lack of a better phrase. Odd - while I do consider myself a feminist - I don't recall ever intentionally giving off the impression that all women were right, better in every situation. Yet - here I am - possibly moments away from the first female presidential candidate and I'm being attacked from all sides because... wait for it... I would not vote for her. GASP!
That's right. I wouldn't vote for her. And do you know why? Well - multiple and complex reasons, but what it mostly boils down to is this - I wouldn't vote for her BECAUSE she is a woman. Do you know how long I've waited for the day to come when a woman could actually step up and run for this position? A long time - longer than this incarnation, I can tell you that. And now that it's happened, I find myself terrified that she actually COULD win. I don't want that. Because IF that happens it will be a cold day in hell before it ever happens again. She is the wrong woman. Just wrong - on so many many levels. For a woman to be elected is only a fraction of the battle. She not only has to be elected, but she has to conduct herself in a way that dispels the horrors that many fear will come to pass should a woman, any woman, become elected - and be given power of this kind. Hillary wouldn't do that. She would exploit her power. She would use it to punish - rather than to progress. She would make decisions for all the wrong reasons. She give validity to every "bitch" stereotype ever thrown upon every woman every where - because sadly, not just the ACTUAL bitches are classified that way. Almost every woman has been called a bitch, or made to feel like a bitch at some point in their lives for some reason or another. I'm not saying some of us don't deserve it. In fact, I'll readily admit that probably 90% of the time when someone calls me a bitch - I totally deserve it, it's totally accurate. But that's just me. I can't speak for others. I know my sister has heard it many times - and I've yet to ever see a situation where she ever fit that bill - and I've known her quite well for a very long time.
Post a Comment